advertisement


Vuelta

OK, I'm going to say you can maintain 550w for 1-2 minutes (most likely far nearer the 1 minute mark) depending on what your maximal effort for 1 hour is - and you won't have that unless you've ridden some big mountains or done a specific turbo session.

The power modelling is accurate Steve. I think we've demonstrated that - it's certainly been shown to be time and time again across continents and platforms.

If you accept that the power modelling is accurate then the conclusion is. You then have to ask, if it's way off, why Brailsford doesn't put that to bed with the relevant file.
 
merlin said:
If you accept that the power modelling is accurate
Click to expand...

I'm willing to agree that power modelling can be reasonably accurate as long as it has access to the necessary data (which this study admits it doesn't) and is averaged across sufficient situations such that variables including weather conditions/drafting etc. aren't a factor (which this study also doesn't).
 
Then you haven't read anything I've posted or the information from doctors and sports science professors Steve.

I guess we'll leave it there.
 
The overwhelming evidence points towards dubious practices and the use of PED's by Froome and Team Sky.

If fans choose to ignore that evidence that's understandable given their needs and wants.

I hope he is clean I really do. I just don't think he is.

Now why not copy and paste your personal power curve ;)
 
According to http://sportsscientists.com/2013/07/ax-3-domaines-history-vams-and-performance-predictions/ AX-3 is 8.9km at 7.46%. So 664m of ascent.

By merlin's school boy physics, which gives a perfectly justifiable lower bound, you need to produce that much energy to raise yourself that distance. Divide by the time it actually took and you get the average power developed.

Anyway

73 * 664 * 9.8 = 475025J

At (450/1.1) = 410W (power available for actual climbing) that would imply 1158s. About 19m 20s. Somethi8ng doesn't add up.

Strava shows that last Thursday near Clacton Alex Dowsett averaged 432W for 18m57, Harry Tanfield 459W for 19m01, Marcin Bialoblocki 437W for 19m08.

So relatively ordinary extraordinary cyclists can do low-mid 400s for 20 minutes. It's not unreasonable to suppose Froome can do the same, and in the first week of the tour when he hasn't worked all race I'm not seeing a smoking gun. Unless they are all on dope.

Paul
 
They aren't school boy physics Paul - they are the calculations of some of the most respected sports scientists in the field.

Dowsett is 76kg. Froome is 67kg come Tour time. That makes Dowsett's effort 5.68 w/kg, Froome's 6.7 w/kg - almost 20% greater power to weight ratio for longer during a Grand Tour -at the end of a long stage....

That's basic sports science Paul and I know you understand that so try not to mislead those who don't.
 
I think you're doing the misleading. Or the data on AX-3 is wrong. If Froome were developing 450W then he would have climbed it in 19m20.

(It's 'school' because it is elementary pre-GCSE stuff, I didn't mean to write 'boy' which is condescending to girls who understand it just as well. You can make the models more complex, but the amount of energy required will remain as calculated plus a bit for overheads. The real complication comes in assessing 'physically possible' given altitude, fatigue and the myriad other factors. Plus the variation in the guess for overhead.)

Paul
 
Reading the Ross post on the 2013 AX3 he wrote the following:

For now, three parting thoughts:

It was fast, very fast. The 23:14 ascent of Ax-3-Domaines puts Froome in third on the all-time list for the climb, behind only Laiseka and Armstrong in 2001. The VAM of 1715 m/h converts to a power output of 6.3 W/kg (Ferrari method) and about 6.5 W/kg with other models (CPL, rst). Very fast.
Before today’s performance is instantly condemned as proof of nefarious pharmacology in the sport, keep in mind what I’ve tried to emphasize many times over the last few years, which is the context of the climb and variability around performance. For example, this climb was done in Stage 12, 13 and 14 of the 2001, 2003 and 2005 Tours, respectively. The earlier placement in week 1 as the first climb of the Tour may affect performance. Also, variability in conditions (particularly wind and heat) make it impossible to make ‘guilt by performance’ proclamations. Let’s wait to analyze the entire Tour, the collection of climbs, and then compare to history’s known dopers. The problem when you get too close in is a kind of “performance pixelation”, so step back and see the whole screen. That will happen in time.
Having said that, what was noteworthy today were the enormous gaps created on the final climb. That’s because with the exception of Froome and perhaps Porte, the rest of the peloton performed in a manner that is typical of cycling over the last few years. Their performances were consistent with post-biological passport levels, and matched or even fell short of the prediction models. It was only Froome and Sky who exceeded them. Therefore, skepticism is normal, and failing to appreciate that will come only from extreme naivety or patriotism. History has taught us the value of some healthy cynicism, and if this level continues for three weeks, it makes for an uncomfortable Tour, of that there is no doubt.

He also states in 2014:

So an interesting start to the mountains, though I have to say, I could easily have repeated the same article I wrote on Facebook after the first day in the mountains in the 2013 Tour de France. On that occasion, it was Froome. Today, Nibali – you can swap the names, but the thoughts and the implications remain the same. Let’s see how the race unfolds, and then we can assess.

Ross

So Merlin, you brought up AX3 data, what was the verdict on the performances on the rest of the 2013 and 2014 tours? Was it a one off high performance early in the tour as postulated by Ross or did the climbs later prove performance continued to equal known dopers? Is Nibali being tainted in the same way as Froome?

Btw, I am no expert or cyclist of your ability but a fan of the sport and don't want there to be doping and have been hoping that the post Armstrong focus has mostly eradicated it.
 
SteveG said:
Indeed. My power curve indicates that I can only maintain 550W for less than a minute, and 450W for under 90s. I am old, weak and slow though!
Click to expand...

As I said Steve, my guess was the low end of 1-2 minutes - assuming your weight and critical power (1 hour sustained) were accurate.

If you can sustain 280w for one hour then you can try harder in short efforts -;
 
merlin said:
As I said Steve, my guess was the low end of 1-2 minutes - assuming your weight and critical power (1 hour sustained) were accurate.

If you can sustain 280w for one hour then you can try harder in short efforts -;
Click to expand...

I appear to be a bit of a diesel when it comes to cycling (and running). I noticed the same when racing at the velodrome - plenty of people were quicker than me over the shorter sprint distances, but I was competitive (even won at times) over the longer distance stuff.
 
SteveG said:
I appear to be a bit of a diesel when it comes to cycling (and running). I noticed the same when racing at the velodrome - plenty of people were quicker than me over the shorter sprint distances, but I was competitive (even won at times) over the longer distance stuff.
Click to expand...

Same with me Steve - although explosive bursts probably assume someone in their prime from an age POV :)

Paul, you are right with regards to the very simply Lim method of analysis. It's 10% out on that climb. For most of us it's fine but the original point was being made using far more advanced modelling - modelling used by top sports scientists. Even allowing for minor errors, I still think Sky could remove the doubts by simply publishing the SRM file - or making available to interested parties.

Cutting, I used the AX climb as it was one of the few where the GC contender worked at maximal effort for the whole climb - which is rare in the absence of a mountain TT. It's interesting that it came at the end of a 195km stage but that should not have impacted the performance to a significant degree.

With regards to the other riders in 2013, that really is the point. None of the other riders climbed at rates that caused many experienced commentators to raise their eyebrows. All of the other contenders were below the thresholds that scientists have set for human physiology and below those of acknowledged dopers. Only Froome's was not.

Of other climbs I really don't know of maximal efforts being applied. Such is stage racing, a GC contender only really attacks and solos when needed over the three weeks - which is very rare. In the TT they will of course, but Froome had never excelled at those prior to being taken under Brailsford's wing at a fairly late stage.

With regards to Paul, using total wattage as opposed to w/kg is like a Tory Brexit politician on BBC News. Even if we take Lim's simplistic climbing model over those of Vayer and Ferrari we still end up with a w/kg of 6.1 versus Dowsett's 5.6. The accusations obviously rely on far more complex modelling and are generally accepted within the sport as being accurate enough that their findings are worthy of discussion.

Bear in mind also that, two years later when Sky released some power data for the climb to Pierre St Martin (the 2015 tour), Froome managed 414w for twice the length of time. Virtually all cyclists I know will lose 5% over that period, hence the difference in calcluating CP60 and CP20 or 30 Paul. Before you come back with the Osymetric chainring argument ( :) ) , two points would be that the Stages used by Sky allegedly allows for any over estimation.

What I am saying is that Froome's performances raise doubts in the eyes of many sports scientists in the same way that others have with the increasingly advanced understanding of sports physiology. I would love the guy to be clean - he is British afterall and appears to be personable. I just find the figures difficult to accept - and I am hardly alone in that conclusion. The veil of secrecy surrounding British Cycling and Sky hardly helps here.
 
merlin said:
With regards to the other riders in 2013, that really is the point. None of the other riders climbed at rates that caused many experienced commentators to raise their eyebrows. All of the other contenders were below the thresholds that scientists have set for human physiology and below those of acknowledged dopers. Only Froome's was not.
Click to expand...

My actual point was OK, the AX3 climb raised eyebrows but did the rest of that tour? Was it a one off spike in performance for Froome in 2013. My mentioning Nibali was that he generated almost the same comment from Ross on the first climb of 2014 but we are not talking about him hence me asking is he subject to the same scrutiny?
 
My point Gareth is that, during a three week Grand Tour, one only needs to make an extended maximal effort on maybe two or three days in order to gain sufficient advantage to win the event. With TT's (which would typically make up the majority of those days) it's more difficult given the cornering efforts and aero involved IME

I've also highlighted Froome's effort in 2015 which flags up at a similar w/kg figure for CP20.
 
Vayer! He is not a Scientist. He has no Science qualification. He is a PE teacher! I cannot see any scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals by him.
 
Gareth, also have a look https://www.bestbikesplit.com/race-overview/44910 here at an analysis of the mountain TT to Megeve last year.

Froome won this with a time one minute faster than the 410w used in the example of 31 minutes.

You will see that there were downhills and turns in the course where power output would be reduced but this gives an idea of maximal effort - although it's less reliable that AX because of the speeds involved. The debate will rage on and on. Those who see something odd (like me) will rely on models that we have found to be effective. Those who don't want to see anything will look for flaws in the data. No one will be sure. Even if Sky released the SRM data, you would have to assume it was calibrated correctly.

There are too many question marks for me hanging over the whole operation I'm afraid. That said, there are those who dispute the methods used by many to calculate power outputs, including Grappe. Even he however says that low estimates are on the limit of human physiology. Spike you are just being silly. I have an IQ of 137 and extensive knowledge of riding with power in the mountains of Europe along with all relevant data. So does Vayer, and Ferrari and any number of other persons within the sport. Don't for one second assume that someone with a B.Sc is more informed than those with experience in the field.
 
In addition to Vayer and Ferrari the other culprit in stirring the pot is that well known doper Richard Virenque who claims he had no option but to take them.

As a commentator he then has the timerity to wind up the French public to such an extent that the Sky team and Froome were physically abused. To add insult to injury he then denied he'd ever uttered the accusations.

Froome is never going to win a popularity contest and even in the recent Vuelta there were obscene gestures from spectators, thank god for the Guardia Civil who took crowd control to a new level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top